What causes inertia? an intuitive explanation
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 лют 2025
- Full article: independentphy...
In theories of modified inertia, inertial forces arise from an induction effect of a gravitoelectric field. If inertia has an origin in gravitation, it appears when trying to dissociate the inertial mass from its gravitational field or curved spacetime. Inertial forces come from spacetime resisting a change in the curved spacetime by the rest of the masses. This answers both questions of where do inertial forces come from and why is extra energy required to depart from the path of a geodesic.
References:
@dialectphilosophy • How Superposition Caus...
@IdeaListEye • How Time Dilation Caus...
Joao Bosco physics.stacke...
Dennis Braun, “A unified theory of gravity and inertia“, 2024 vixra.org/pdf/...
Jonathan Fay, "On Sciama 1953" independentphy...
Manuel Uruena, "MOND as a Transformation Between Non-inertial Reference Frames Via Sciama’s Interpretation of Mach’s Principle", International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Volume 63, article number 271, 2024 arxiv.org/abs/...
Tags:
#inertia #gravity modified inertia, origin of inertia, inertial forces, inertial frames, mach's principle, Ernst Mach, gravity, equivalence principle, General Relativity
Great video--and thank you for trying to explain what modern physics has left unexplained. I agree that Newton described inertia as a reaction without an action. He violated his own Third Law. I agree that the action that causes the inertial reaction can only be the matter's gravity--its continuous dynamic effect upon its surrounding space. I also agree that the near and distant distribution of matter everywhere determines the local spatial-inertial frame, and that the mechanism is gravity. However, to go further than this, we require a working theory of what gravity is and how the gravitational fields of the near and distant matter together condition the local space within which the test mass exists.
Space-time and its curvature is not the physical theory that you seek. Look into the nature of space-time. It is only a measurement construct--a mathematical model of the observers' rod-and-clock measurements of the distance and time intervals between events. It is not a Cosmic reality or substance. A geodesic is just a description of the effects of gravity on the observers' measurements of matter's motion. It is impossible to move "through" or relative to space-time as it includes time. It is an imaginary 4-dimensional solid that includes the past, present, and future. Notice that it incorporates the thoroughly non-physical, anti-Cosmic assumption that light travels at c in every observer's frame. See Dialect's most recent video on this subject. Likewise, the fact that matter cannot be accelerated to the speed of light requires a physical explanation, and it is not the resistance of space-time. It is the resistance of a physical inertial-electromagnetic space.
In your Dialect video clip at 3:50 mins, you state that mass is accelerating outwards. But it isn't. Mass is not constantly expanding. What is happening, almost certainly, is that the surrounding inertial space is accelerating radially into the mass, as the video clip suggests. The ballistic and relativistic effects of gravity are immediately and perfectly explained by the theory that matter is a spatial sink--that Newton-Lorentz, inertial-electromagnetic space is not a single Cosmic solid, but instead a fluid that everywhere flows into matter, as into a sink. This flow perfectly explains Einstein's Principle of Equivalence of inertial and gravitational acceleration. Free fall is the state of non-acceleration relative to an inertial space that is itself accelerating towards Earth.
Similar to your argument, in the Flowing Space theory, the application of a force to a mass causes it to accelerate relative to the space it is accelerating into itself. This creates opposing accelerations in the spatial medium--an acceleration times an acceleration. All we need to propose is that these opposing accelerations cannot be instantaneously accommodated without creating some tension in space that cannot be instantaneously relieved. The tension disappears as soon as the force is removed--as soon as there are no opposing accelerations within space. Then the mass can again move at constant velocity through the massless, frictionless, spatial substance.
In Flowing Space theory, all planets, stars and galaxies are spatial sinks or sources. They are all in free-fall motion, so their gravitational spatial flow fields co-move with them (entrainment) out to a great distance. The interactions of their entrained flow-fields determine the accelerational and rotational state of space at every location. This provides the missing physical mechanism for Mach's Principle.
Space is everywhere the same substance, and it appears to always produce the same amount of resistance to matter's acceleration. To date, there is no data that suggests that a mass's inertia is greater if there is more matter in its vicinity. Space's resistance to matter's acceleration relative to itself is the same whether matter is near a celestial body, or far from it.
Thank you for such a constructing comment.
Yes, we used the notion of spacetime curvature and geodesics in the video, since we are all familiar with General Relativity. Of course Einstein did achieve a lot with General Relativity by treating gravity as acceleration and by considering the stress-energy tensor as the source of gravity, and not just mass. But alternative theories of gravity can be built withouth spacetime curvature (or at least, without a spacetime background for which absolute accelerations in GR are defined with respect to). We will explore the history of theories of gravity in a next video, seeking for inspiration for new and different ideas on how to interpret gravity. The river model or flowing space interpretation of GR is very intriguing and definitely deserves attention, as it points towards a mechanistic explanation of the relativistic effects of GR.
So... where does space go after it flows into the Earth?
There is a point in space between the Earth and the Moon where an object "feels" the exact same gravitational "force" or "flow" I guess in your case. On the side closer to the Moon, a falling object will fall down to the Moon, and on the side of this point closer to the Earth, a falling object will fall down to the Earth.
So... does space errupt out of nothing at this point and then flow towards either the Moon or the Earth?
@@juliavixen176 The cause of spatial consumption must be the nuclei of Earth's atoms. There is good reason to believe that spatial consumption may be an aspect of the strong nuclear force--that it is the act of consuming space, and not just "glue" that keeps positively charged protons in such close proximity in a nucleus. This suggests that only hadrons create gravity--and not electrons, light, or "energy".
Yes, there is a point between Earth and Moon at which space has no significant acceleration or velocity in either direction--where a test mass would remain at rest and an atomic clock would run at the fastest rate.
@@Milesian2003 Gravity bends the path of light. How does this interaction work?
How do tides work?
You know that inertia is just confined momentum (or energy), right? And the confined forces (Electromagnetic, Strong, etc.) are following a geodesic... which is why geodesics exactly describe inertial reference frames.
m(iner)=/=m(grav).
Object with m0=1 kg moving in direction X with factor gamma=2. You need different forces in direction X and Y to change its speed. In case of gravity = 2kg object will be 2 kg in all directions(with very small difference).
1:20 very bold statement
The inertial force can't be of electromagnetic origin because electromagnetic forces can cancel out between positive and negative charges. That's why planetary orbits and galaxy dynamics are not mainly governed by electromagnetic forces (there exists some kind of equilibrium), but they are governed by gravity, which canno't be shielded or counteracted.
Inertia-induction could arises from the process of photon ∆E=hf energy continuously changing into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter in the form of electrons. This geometrical process would form symmetry that would be broken by a force forming acceleration or a change in direction.
We have never thought or read about this idea
@@IndependentPhysics The symmetry or geometrical aspect can be based on Huygens’ Principle that says,
“Every point on a light wave front has the potential for a new spherical 4πr² light wave".
We can think of ‘every point’ as a potential for a photon ∆E=hf electron interaction or coupling.
We have to square the radius r² of the sphere because process unfolds upon the spherical surface.
This gives us a reason why so much is squared in the physics, like the charge of the electron is squared e². The speed of the process is squared, c² the speed of light.
Velocity is squared v² as in the equation for kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy.
The wave particle function or probability function of quantum mechanics is squared ψ².
Also natural time is squared t² in the work of Galileo with acceleration due to gravity. Distanced travelled is proportional to the square of elapsed time t². d=1/2 a t² with F=ma = m d²r/dt²
Light or Sub-Q/Quantum Fields are the Ultimate 'Dynamic Kinetic Contructors(DKC's). DKC is my Big ToE or Theory of Everything. As All Things are or will Become DKC's because of the Meta-Law of Entropy(Entropic Force-Motion or Equivalence of the First 3 Meta-Laws of Stochastic Discrete/Continuum Thermodynamics & Mechanics).
There's also what's called 'Dynamic Kinetic Stability(DKS)' & 'Dynamic Kinetic Independence(DKI or 'Dynamical Independence' for Short).
Also All Inertial Centers of Gravitational Mass Shift because of Quantum Fluctuations &/or Brownian Motion. Even a Black Holes Center of Gravitational Mass Fluctuates Manifesting as Hawking/Unrul Radiation. Therefore Gravity is Stochastic & an Entropic Force, as All Forces are.
References; 'What is Life?How Chemistry Becomes Biology' Oxford University Press 2012, 'Life Sets off a Cascade of Machines' PNAS 2025(Defines what DKC's are/do), 'A Different Universe:Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down' Basic Books 2005, 'Dynamical Independence:Discovering Emergent Macroscopic Processes in Complex Dynamical Systems' Phy. Rev. E 2023, '3D Effects of the Entropic Force' Physica A 2015, Entropic Force & Entanglement System' Phy. Rev. D 2010, 'The Dome:An Unexpectedly Simple Failure of Determinism' Philosophy of Science 2008, 'What is a Complex System?' Yale University Press 2020, & 'Causality as an Emergent Macroscopic Phenomenon:' Phy. Rev. D. More Later!...
DKS is related to Energy-Mass-Momentum Conservation & Q-Matter/Field Memory. Dynamic Kinetic Independence is a Principle of Divergence via Non-Equilibrium Stochastic & Special Offset Divergence(Branching Space-times, Uniqueness & Local Activity Principle eg SSB).
epic explanation!!! 💖
FIELD...KAISE SUSTAIN KAREGA MATH...
Acceleration (of material objects) is absolute, not relative.
So, one of the things about Mach's Principle in regards to the parts of the "Universe" which can have a gravitational cause and effect relationship is that there is a horizon beyond which no light and gravitational waves will ever reach us... and over time... because of the expansion of space... a lot of matter and energy is disappearing beyond that horizon. (Ok, it hasn't happened yet because that horizon is further away from us than the CMB, but it will eventually catch up in a few dozen billion years. )
So... will things have less inertia as more of the universe becomes unreachable?
Acceleration cannot be absolute. If it were, it would be absolute with respect to an unobservable and unphysical space or spacetime, and inertial forces would not have an origin in an interaction, as all other forces we know. Einstein strongly opposed the notion of absolute forces in his 1914 paper "On the relativity problem".